Thank you, Roger. This was very interesting. You picked a good quotation from Jung and caught that archetypes are
psychic states with the power of organizing consciousness but have no fixed images or symbolic representations. This
discussion of Dali's paintings is the best astrological use of Jung's idea of archetypes that I've ever seen.

An Afterthought: I find the above description of *archetype* as "formula" an inspired starting point; and
this formula-with-no-name seems unlimited in it potential use as a type of solvent in the analysis of the
collected symbols I call my "self".

Jung actually posited the Self as an archetype, most commonly--though not necessarily--represented in (1) various symbolic
"marriages," such as the conjunction of the opposites, the _hieros gamos_ ("sacred marriage"), the alchemical marriage of
Sol and Luna, and (2) in the simple quartered circle, and its elaborations as mandalas, most familiar to us as the ordinary
form of the horoscope. (I think this is the only archetypal symbol/image operative in astrology.)

Though this idea is fortunately available to me as a starting point, I note that above writing appears in
1921, some 17 to 18 years into Jung's opus of collected works: this rather fundamental notion seems to
have 'popped up' as an instantaneous synthesis of long considered experiences (and it is also Jung's
premise that all states of the psyche are the products of many years of living, "half a lifetime" is not
uncommon says).

Jung had a very hard time that coincided with World War I. The Jungians refer to it as his descent into the unconscious and
his detractors call it his raging psychosis. "Seven Sermons to the Dead" comes from this period. Whatever he underwent,
he put his pieces back together and had some new ideas. Jungian analysis is generally regarded as suitable for those in the
second half of life, middle-aged and older. If you're younger than that, you get a lot of Freud, even from the Jungians.

This founding principle may have been an impulsive 'neptuian' act as it finds itself not as a title or a
chapter heading, rather, it seems a treasure buried in the subheading above: perhaps dreamed up on the
very moment of this writing...maybe not. Perhaps a Jungian scholar will set me straight on this point as I
am little lazy at the thought of searching the previous 18 years of Jung's writing. However this sweeping,
vague notion of archetype as formula would be a good candidate as a parallel expression of Jung's natal
Saturn *square* Pluto (90 degrees apart--suggesting a piling of ideas as evidence--as one pile's bricks).

There's an analyst joke that Freud had one idea and ran all his facts through it and Jung had one fact and ran all his ideas
through it.

It becomes very easy to view Dali's surrealistic paintings as a search for *archetype* as "formula",
"Metamorphosis of Narcissus", as largely the product of Dali's Saturn *trine* Pluto (120 degrees
apart--suggesting forms as created by the process of an instantaneous, mutual infusion of ideas). The
reported difference of the square aspect vs. the trine aspect indeed seems appropriately conceived because
Dali's dream-like themes, unlike Jung's, are conjured into tangible objects, and not a Jungian compilation
of intangibles. The reported, 'easy as 1,2,3', nature of trine aspect is probably consistent with my thinking
of Dali's 'forms' as being much more immediate in their accessibility and a lot less weighty than even, "The
Portable Jung"...:)